“Apple has reportedly banned an anti-abortion app from the App Store after complaints were made about it from ‘left-wing bloggers,'” Luke Dormehl reports for Cult of Mac. “”

“Anti-abortion group Human Coalition claims that, when Apple first removed the app, the company said it was due to functionality problems,” Dormehl reports. “However, when Human Coalition spoke with Apple representatives, they demonstrated that the app actually exceeded minimum requirements and ‘functioned better than similar apps from other developers.'”

“Since launching the App Store in 2008, Apple has periodically faced criticism due to its curated App Store and a sometimes inconsistent approach to banning apps,” Dormehl reports. “The Human Coalition app is still available on the Google Play Store.”

“Pro-life organization Human Coalition says its app, which is still on the Google Play Store where it boasts a near five-star rating, was removed from the App Store by the brass at Apple after they were criticized by pro-choice activists and liberal-leaning media,” Perry Chiaramonte reports for Fox News. “Officials for the Human Coalition said Apple then made matters worse by lying about why the site was taken down.”

“Officials for Apple did not immediately respond to requests for comment,” Chiaramonte reports. “‘Harnessing the power of prayer and technology, this Prayer App brings together praying people from across the country in real-time for one purpose: to pray for abortion-determined families as they walk through their decision process,’ reads a description of the app on its Google Play Store page.”

“News of Apple’s seeming censorship of a pro-life organization came on the heels of Twitter having to reverse the ban of a pro-life campaign ad after a wave of backlash,” Chiaramonte reports. “Earlier this month, the social media giant had suspended the purchased ad of U.S. Senate candidate Marsha Blackburn, telling the Tennessee Republican’s campaign officials that a reference to ‘baby parts’ was inflammatory and would likely bring a strong negative reaction.”

“In the ad, Blackburn was seen announcing her candidacy and declaring, ‘I am 100 percent pro-life. I fought Planned Parenthood, and we stopped the sale of baby parts,'” Chiaramonte reports. “But the only negative reaction Twitter received was backlash over what was perceived as censorship on its part. Some 24 hours later, Twitter reversed its decision.”

MacDailyNews Take: Regardless of the app, we don’t think Apple should be banning those that do not espouse violence or otherwise do not run afoul of Apple’s published App Store Review Guidelines.

MacDailyNews Note: Please keep the discussion civil and on-topic. Off-topic posts and ad hominem attacks will be deleted and those who post such comments will be moderated/blocked. Permanent loss of screen name could also result.

Thank You for supporting MacDailyNews!

15 Comments

The app aside, it is wrong to call those who are anti-abortion as “pro life.” Many of these people are usually anything but pro life. They only care about the fetus before it is born…then afterwards, no healthcare, no educational assistance, no concern. They usually support a very war like stance in foreign policy, and are anti-environmentalism and don’t want any common sense gun control. Oh yeah, they also helped elect a nut job in Trump, which shows you that they are not pro life at all.

I’ll take the anti-abortion people seriously when they are completely pro life. In all fairness, some Catholics are, like the current Pope, or like Mother Theresa was. But conservative Christians are the worst hypocrites in the world, and have revealed themselves in their support of Trump.

Without knowing much more about that app, the app may belong in a madrasa whose male mulahs control women’s vaginas religiously. As someone has pointed out, it could be used to rouse irrational emotions of anti-women preachers to target family planning organiztions and limit the free speech rights of those who want to learn about how to abort.

“”I do not like abortions and I do not know of anyone who does. But I do support a woman’s right of choice, as difficult and unpleasant as that choice may be.”

This statement from above is so sad and pathetic it would be funny were not the issue so important. It is clear that the writer truly thinks that they are being fair and open-minded. What is the issue you ask? It is when one group of people use their power to de-personalize another.

imagine someone saying, “I do not like slavery and I do not know of anyone who does. But I do support the slave holder’s right of choice, as difficult and unpleasant as that choice may be.”

Hitler decided that Jews were not persons. They were swine. In our country, people from Africa were not persons. They were property.

De-personalization is a scourge that appears throughout history and leads to murder.

Contrast de-personalization with this statement, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

I’m not going to touch the pro-life/pro-choice thing going on here, but instead pose a different question for which I honestly don’t know the answer: does Apple really have the right to ban iOS apps based on content?

(Yes I know it may not be a content issue in this case, as we don’t have all the info, but I’m talking hypothetically here.)

On the Mac, you can get apps from elsewhere than the Mac App Store, but not on iOS. On your XBOX or PlayStation, you can get games from elsewhere than Microsoft’s or Sonys digital store. I am aware you can choose a different phone platform, but is that enough? Is the cost barrier of switching (phone plus all the apps you have to repurchase) enough of a deterrent that the iOS platform could be considered a type of monopoly, and subject to applicable regulations?

I ask this because in their own ways, YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter are all in a similar state: there are no REAL alternatives in each of their categories, so when I look at something like the Adpocalyps on YouTube, or the easily seen inequities of what they put on the Restricted list, I wonder a bit whether or not YouTube really has that right, even on their own platform. I generally despise government regulation of any kind, and am usually the first to say “no one is putting a gun to your head” to buy that, patronize that site, etc. But our electronic devices are such an integral part of our modern lives, and this is such a seemingly new phenomenon that social interaction is in many ways dictated (and censored) by single corporations, maybe the choice to leave is not the best one. I honestly don’t know.

According to the US Supreme Court, corporations also have many of the First Amendment rights guaranteed to individuals. It would therefore be unconstitutional for the government to compel Apple, YouTube, Facebook, etc. to refrain from protected expression or to compel expression against their corporate will. Where the expression is alleged to violate non-discrimination laws, some balancing of rights may be necessary. Even so, these are not common carriers required to transmit every message that comes along.

Using the term “choice” when it comes to killing babies has always seemed strange to me. You mean a person has a “right” to kill a baby? Doesn’t make sense at all. Seems very similar to Hitler, Mao, Stalin, etc. way of thinking. Was it Stalin who said, “It’s a crime to kill one man, but killing millions is just statistics,” or something like that. Millions of babies have been killed. When something is alive then that life is stopped, hey, that’s called killing.

I am on the side of living women such as my girlfriend who has taught me a lot about women’s suffering rather than on the side of laws mostly written by men to control women’s private parts and unborn fetusus.

As iPhone users – you and I – I recomend that you get the “How To Leave Women’s Vaginas Alone” app.

The irony is that the very people who claim to be pro life are amongst the most vocal supporters of killing muslims, criminals without trial, etc.

Apparently to a true religious zealot, a person can’t be killed until they commit their first crime, like lying in kindergarten or stealing some other brat’s lunch money or …gasp… crossing a national border as a refugee to escape a civil war.

Then it’s perfectly ok to reduce the surplus population. Ban entry, ban social services, deny healthcare funding, threaten other nations with extermination, and accelerate the arms races in all levels. That’s what Jesus would do.